Keep in mind "slasher movie" usually translates into "killer in a mask murdering stupid, horny, drunk teenagers in over-the-top and impossible ways". Now granted, Rambo is killing people in over-the-top ways, but to protect innocent people, not because that's how he gets his jollies. Plus, does even "fighting under a country's flag" actually justify killing people?

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Actually, one would be rather hard pressed to really put Rambo IV into the war movie genre, because it isn't like he is a soldier fighting under the flag of his country. He is just a mercenary slaughtering people in an undefined context. In a sense, it is almost more closely related to a slasher flick. I'll probably get flamed for that comparison, but intellectually, it isn't that far afield.

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Plus, does even "fighting under a country's flag" actually justify killing people?

I never suggested it does. I don't think we have to go far past current events and the recent adventurism of this nation to provide an example of how it does not. However, if you happen to be a soldier conscripted by a particular nation, your options are decidedly limited at the point in which your superiors order you into harms way. You can follow orders, make a run for it and risk a firing squad, or eliminate the effort of the running part and simply defy orders which will generally yield the same result. John Rambo was a mercenary who had a choice in the matter. The people he was blowing to pieces didn't. Incidentally, the "innocent people" he was austensibly defending had a choice of not involving themselves in the matter either, and the conflict into which they were imposing themselves was so poorly defined in the movie that there was no reason to assume they were actually acting nobly.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Anyway, I think you guys are really reading too far into this flick. I haven't read any Sly interviews on the subject, so I don't know if he was trying to foster patriotism or not. I can only post what I remember of the film.

This guy Rambo, he's a killer. To the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail, so he kills. He takes some jackass missionaries into a hostile environment, they get captured, he rescues them, and leaves a lot of men red and ruined on the way. I didn't see it as Rambo blasting guys for being Buddhists, or Asians or in the name of Bush. It was just a killer driven to kill. And for my fellow veterans out there, maybe an 'excuse,' to kill.

Anyway, it's no Oscar sure, but it's also not some New World Order Neo-Con's attempt to push the final solution forward either.

Allow me to welcome you as well Witchkiller. I suppose I could probably agree with you if this were the onlyRambo flick. However, Stallone has established a context. As much as anything, I strongly object to the glorification of violence and the graphic presentation thereof. The whole notion of "every problem is a nail and I'm one bada$$ hammer" is precisely the kind of mentality we human folk need to leave behind pronto.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Allow me to welcome you as well Witchkiller. I suppose I could probably agree with you if this were the onlyRambo flick. However, Stallone has established a context. As much as anything, I strongly object to the glorification of violence and the graphic presentation thereof. The whole notion of "every problem is a nail and I'm one bada$$ hammer" is precisely the kind of mentality we human folk need to leave behind pronto.

That isn't meant to be symbolic or a mentality Stallone wants to think of, it's character development. Rambo has come to terms with what he is, a killer that it.

Ok...I'm trying to warn you guys now but many, MANY, MANY people are hating the guts out of you guys for having put this film up for every category. Some have even said "Some time in the future, the Razzies should nominate themselves."

I will not get involved in this. But I'll enjoy seeing the war take place!

Hey man, I'm all against the razzing Stallone just for the sake of razzing Stallone thing, too. But hey, if he gets enough votes, there's really nothing that can be done. The people will have spoken...

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

We'll survive...I promise. What is the worst that can happen? Is the Stallone Fan Club going to bombard us with monosyllabic witicisms? Is Stallone himself going to mercilessly pelt us with controlled substances?

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

I've never seen a Rambo film in my life (although I own the 2nd film on DVD), but I was
interested in seeing the most recent one because of the highly positive
reactions from the fans of the series. I liked the way the film started
off but it was gets boring after awhile. Stallone's performance was
also really unconvincing maybe because of his weird face. The only thing
I liked was the action finale which was really exciting. Other than
that, it was meh. And that blond woman was soooo stupid. 5/10

I am rerouting the discussion which rushmore steered the thread for the Worst of 1998 RAZZIE Winners into this thread.

Who else among us can agree that compared with In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, Postal, and 1968 Tunnel Rats, that Rambo IV was the least of four evils? I can guarantee that, if I would've been old enough to sign up for a voting membership (don't you have to be 18 or older to buy a membership for our awards?) back in 2008, I'd have been among the many to vote for Uwe Boll for Worst Career Achievement over Sylvester Stallone. I also agree that in the Worst of 1999 RAZZIES, there should've been categories for Worst Actor and Actress of the Decade 199X instead of the century 19XX, because very few films from before 1940 are vividly remembered today, very few bad films from before 1953's Glen or Glenda and Robot Monster were well-known by the beginning of 2000, and other actors like Kevin Costner were cheated out of a Worst of the Decade RAZZIE for movies like The Postman. Stallone has been in 7 of my annual Bottom 40ers since Y2K, and none are as uniformly considered among the worst of all time to the degree of Uwe Boll's 6 films to get released in America, especially Alone in the Dark. And I honestly don't think Stallone will ever make another film as bad as Staying Alive (which dates back long before my Bottom 40 lists began). With a few exceptions such as 2006 Honorable Mention Rocky Balboa, I would say 1982 was Stallone's last good year.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum